"Let's write down lines 1 and 2 and do the rest in our head because, honestly, this is _not_ hard" was my brilliant strategy, based on the assumption that my last-used-can't-remember-when arithmetic skillz haven't degraded. Good thing for us the test is so easy that a non-integer answer is clearly wrong...
Excellent article I thought, and indeed E.Manning apparently played quite well yesterday.
Yeah, and I can't figure out the fucking formula to calculate my grades. Goddamnit.
The easiness of the test is somewhat lessened when you learn that you have 14.4 seconds per question.
Rilkefan, this doesn't apply to this site. (He did play well, but there is still only one NFL rookie quarterback you want when your team is trailing in the 4th quarter).
"there is still only one NFL rookie quarterback you want when your team is trailing in the 4th quarter"
Would that be the rookie quarterback on the team with a great line and strong RBs and gifted receivers, oh, and a swarming defense? If I get the team with the QB, then sure.
14.4 seconds - well, the other example ("what matches the word 'familiar'") didn't take that long. Perhaps though this question is there to show the test taker can judge which questions will take too much time.
Oh, sure. I wish Eli Manning all the best in his career--I really do, though Coughlin can go to hell--and I'm actually kind of glad that he had a good game, because I was afraid that Coughlin was going to wreck his confidence forever by running him out against a bunch of the NFL's best teams to start his career.
But as far as the parameters of football trash-talk go, "My quarterback lost because everyone *else* on your team is so much better" isn't the best of comebacks. The best comeback is "13-1, baby."
You're right about the IQ test--I went through a whole one of them once, and most of the questions don't take too long; that leaves you with a while for the pencil-and-paper ones.
"The best comeback is [beside the point small sample size conclusion snipped]"
Yes, but you'll still be talking about _football_.
Hey, give me something to cling to in this cold*, cruel world, OK?
*9 degrees in Milwaukee right now.
This question illustrates the importance of taking the right shortcut. Don't make things any more complicated than they need to be!
When I looked at this, I started by asking how many pages would be filled using only small type. That's easy: 24,000/1200 = 20.
So I only need to fill up one more page. Now the ratio of words per page in the different type sizes is the inverse of the ratio pages taken by a constant amount of text; the ratio of words per page is 1200:900, or 4:3, so the ratio of small-type to large-type pages is 3:4. Well, the one-extra page substitution falls right out from that ratio: 4 of the large type pages for 3 of the 20 small type pages.
4 large and 17 small. So easy.
This slick method would be more difficult than the algebraic approach for other values...
Let's put it this way: I never got much of a chance at playing second base because it wasn't clear that I was going to get the ball to first without a hop.
Rilkefan:
I guess you could call it a method. I just sized up what needed to be done and saw an easy way to get there.
But you're right. If the values were different, it wouldn't have been easy, and I wouldn't have done it that way. And that's exactly the point.
It's not finding a better method (not better in an absolute sense, anyway). It's all just thinking about the problem.
"It's all just thinking about the problem."
Right, but (presumably) you started down that road without asking yourself whether you were losing valuable seconds on the clock, whether there was a slightly higher risk of making a mistake under the Zeitnot, ...
Anyway, even minor contention over this point is "not the holiday spirit" (to quote the President), esp. when FL really ought to find and post an entire exam of the sort Manning took.
Good points.
It took a fraction of a second to see that 24,000/1200 = 20, and I decided at that point which way to go.
If the numbers hadn't looked so promising from the beginning, I would have tried something else -- like algebra.
Since I used only small numbers or large round numbers, I actually minimized the chances of error compared to solving the equations (see ogged's mishap above).
And it's not like pursuing the algebraic method saves you from doing this thinking. You have to work through something like this in the end -- even if only with rough numbers to come up with an estimate -- to make sure that the answer from algebra makes sense.
So much of the art of rapidly answering questions like this is meta-knowledge about tests: aretino figured that the question was probably arranged to be easy enough to do with some mental shortcut, and was right.
The most vicious tests to take are those constructed by inexperienced test authors who can't judge how difficult a question is (and especially by authors so careless that the questions are invalidated by outright mistakes). It's not just that some of the questions will end up unreasonably hard or impossible; it's also that they trip up the expectations of seasoned test-takers. In a sense, that might make the messed-up tests the best gauge of real-world thinking ability.